9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)

Continuation from another board..

I will continue discussion from another board, because KennyJC was temporarily suspended from that board, but I believe that the response they gave him there should be something for him and others to see. Headspin has given permission to quote him. So here goes.

Kenny believed that Headspin had generally ignored everything RKOwens4 had written (in yet another forum). Headspin replied:

Kenny wanted Headspin to address the point RK had made regarding barium nitrate and aluminium oxide not being found in the dust. Headspin responded:

He also mentioned that he could have searched for the word "barium" in the above document if Kenny had the intention of understanding the discussion.

He further mentioned:

Kenny asks if there is or is not a clear distinction between barium and barium nitrate. Headspin responds:

Kenny also asks if there is a clear distinction between aluminium and aluminium oxide. Headspin responds:

For those who are able and interested in seeing the original thread where this post, and posts this post references, it is here:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=141354&t=663014

I will continue his response in the following post.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Kenny continues, saying that Headspin had suggested that all of the dust seen from the collapse was aluminium oxide. Headspin responded:

Kenny then states that, to his knowledge, Steven Jones did not even report barium in his initial findings. Headspin responds:

Kenny then states that it wasn't until later that Steven Jones started claiming this. Headspin responds:

Kenny states that, in regards to Headspin's materials on the microspheres, he had thrown a lot of material at me and he wasn't going to take it on at that time. Headspin responds:

Kenny states that Steven Jones talks about molten steel being ejected from the south tower and that he believes it is far more likely that it was molten aluminum.

Headspin responds:

Kenny states:

Headspin responds:

Kenny states:

Headspin responds:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In another post, Headspin continues to respond to Kenny's post.

Kenny stated:

Headspin responded:

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/663014/1/ , post 17

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't think you're allowed to post from other forums, Scott.

Also, contaminated molten aluminium could easily be orange in colour.

Finally: if there's molten steel, so what? Gasoline fires melt unprotected steel.

 

Oh, and the refusal for NIST to meet with Jones is not surprising. He's not an engineer.

 

I have permission from the author. Or are you saying that the admins here don't approve?

I must admit I've heard that argument before. I'll see what the loose change crew have to say about it.

I remember someone bringing up a gasoline fire apparently melting steel, but I'm not sure if it was accurate reporting; after all, it would seem to defy the laws of physics. Anyway, I'll bring both these points up with the loose change guys.

 

He has an enormous following. If NIST is willing to meet reporters, I can't see how it would hurt to meet a physicist, who certainly knows a fair amount on the 9/11 tower collapses. That is, if they wanted to get to the truth. If not, I can definitely see how it could hurt their case.

In terms of Steven Jones expertise, let me give you an example of someone who wasn't so knowledgeable on this subject just a short time ago and yet now know a fair amount; myself. I'm the first to admit that at present, some issues still go over my head, but I'm learning relatively quickly. Steven Jones has been doing this for years now and being a physicist is certainly an advantage. What's more, he has referenced many others as well, some of who are definitely experts on fires. There are also many engineers who disagree with the official story.

 

I know that NIST has claimed this, but their attempt to actually verify this as a possibility are fairly dissapointing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQdkyaO56OY

I have been told that gasoline, diesel or kerosene will not melt steel without a properly proportioned oxidizer. The theory that the fires melted the steel is perhaps the first news story that died out. At present, NIST officials state that there was no melted steel at all. I believe this may be because the idea that the 10 minute jet fuel fire, or office furniture thereafter doing this is something that even NIST officials can't defend, so to admit that there was indeed melted and even evaporated steel is akin to essentially admitting that their theory is a brittle as a stack of cards.

 

Ok a few points to be made here.

Quoting the research of Abolhassan Astaneh is interesting because he was one of those who investigated the steel. Once again the steel was investigated and not spirited away and hidden.

He made several comments regarding the twisted columns which he looked over. Twisted steel is not molten steel.

At 1800 degrees F steel is down to 10% of its strength. NIST estimated that there were pockets of fire at 1823 degrees F. So steel bending out of shape due to becoming soft is not surprising at all.

Jet fuel may not burn that hot but if you cover offices in jet fuel then set them alight with an explosion those temperatures could be reached. Watch footage of the building long after the impacts and you will see fires raging away.

I would like clarification on what "I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center" means exactly. Is he talking about steel being bent out of shape or did he see the results of molten metal? Soft steel is not molten steel. If it's still recognisable as a girder then it was not molten steel.

The claims of thermite, supposedly used to cut the columns, wouldn’t explain the bent steel and neither do bombs. If the steel could bend without these things, why do we need to imagine that they were involved?

All this is still a bit of misdirection because it is clear that the steel did not need to melt for the building to fall.

Keep in mind that Abolhassan Astaneh, who specializes in structural damage done by earthquakes and terrorist bombings, found no signs of explosives and he supports the official story.

 

Yes, but Steven Jones does claim it was thermAte. Correct me if I’m wrong, but a thermate reaction will always give off barium nitrate and aluminum oxide.

So even if this is true, basically he can’t prove anything? Reason being; these elements were within the WTC anyway, with or without thermate. If he could have found compounds of barium nitrate and aluminium oxide it would have certainly given his claims a degree of respectability.

Without even reading this, I can confirm to you that aluminium was everywhere in the WTC as it encased the outer beams. And it’s rather obvious that oxygen should be there too.

"The levels of many of the elements are consistent with their presence in building materials, including chromium, magnesium, manganese, aluminum, and barium."
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/110p703-714lioy/EHP110p703PDF.PDF

But as seen with Jones’ paper on how Jesus visited America, he is happy to put faith over evidence, and falsify evidence to suit agenda. Very unscientific.

You said there was much observed dust as the building collapsed and this would account for the aluminium oxide which funnily enough, absent in Jones' reports.

Nevertheless he still claims that barium being found in dust is evidence of thermate. Glad to see you agree with me that this is a dubious claim.

First you need to realize a few things before you fall all over yourself to shout “molten steel”. The molten material just so happens to be coming from exactly the point where the plane crashed to a halt. I shouldn’t need to tell you that a plane is made of large amounts of aluminium. You also will notice that this is the area that is greatly affected by fire and heat, thus it’s logical to assume that the aluminium from the plane was heated to the point were it melted.

The temperatures were well within the range of melting aluminium, and at such temperatures, any molten aluminium would not be silver. At 1800 farenheit which is the temperatures NIST describes, any molten aluminium would have been light orange in appearance. It’s colour and luminosity could also be influenced by contamination from other materials such as glass. It’s very unlikely that it was pure aluminium. The further the molten material falls, you see it dim to the point were you can almost make out that it is silvery in appearance.

The reason for the material being ejected appears to have been due to the sagging floors which became noticeable at the exact same time the molten material was seen falling out of the windows.

I think people would be happy to peer review his information if he was even remotely interested in submitting it to the relevant respected journals. When someone questioned him at one of his presentations about where his work has been peer reviewed he dodged the question:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRRfCAaEyLk

LOL... this proves (if it hasn’t been proven already) that you are a complete ignorant dumbass. Did you even read the full document? He describes steel being twisted and warped and that this could have only been possible if:

“That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot—perhaps around 2,000 degrees.”

So I think we can effectively rule out that he made any claims about molten steel.

One huge obstacle you have to overcome is explaining how it would even be possible to demolish a building with thermate. Here’s what NIST has to say about the of thermite/thermate being used to demolish the towers:

"Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present [approx. 19% by weight] in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions."

Here is what demolition expert Brent Blanchard had to say about the matter:

"Dr. Jones acknowledges that his investigation is still in the research phase and that questions regarding the viability of his theory remain unanswered. For example, it is unknown how thermite’s destructive process could have been applied and initiated simultaneously on so many beams – in several buildings – undetected and/or under such extreme conditions. It is also unusual that no demolition personnel at any level noticed telltale signs of thermite’s degenerative “fingerprint” on any beams during the eight months of debris removal."

All truthers need to do to debunk this is to get a chunk of steel similar to the consistency and thickness of any of the supporting beams Steven Jones claims were cut by thermite/thermate in the WTC, then stand it up vertically and cut the beam horizontally using only thermite/thermate without it being directly applied by hand.

If the beam can be cut quickly and accurately by thermite/thermate use, then that would give his claims some credibility.

 

No scott, you are not learning. With the help of conspiracy authors and idiots on the Loose Change forum, the only thing you are learning is to have a deceitful answer to everything. The reason you do this is because you have an initial fondness for believing in quacky conspiracy theories, and quite obviously only listen to the people who share your fantasy.

 

From whatreallyhappened.com:

Alright, I'll let this one go for now.

They misrepresent the physics of fires. 911research.wtc7.net points out their flaw:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html

I'll see if I can get it clarified.

Again, I'll attempt to get answers here.

If fires were the only things involved, what seems clear is that the steel wouldn't have even softened.

Ok. Perhaps he didn't really look into the story. Or perhaps he was promised some sweet deals like Van Romero has gotten after 9/11. Initially, Van Romero stated:

Later, he said:

9-11 Research goes on:

 

So does L. Ron Hubbard.

They don't want to bother meeting Jones because a) he has an agenda, rather than an open mind, b) it seems unlikely he could provide any clarification of the issue of the collapse and c) he's not an engineer. That would be enough for me.

By this, do you mean the theologians or the history professors on his "Who's That" list of arcane academics supporting his equally arcane theories? There are many more engineers who agree with the official story.

 

Another lie.

You keep ignoring the bowing of the tower which supports the softening of steel. You ignore the very article your Loose Change guru put fourth showing that inspected WTC steel was shown to have warped and twisted due to high temperatures.

 

Clearly, in the actual event, the towers collapsed, never mind bent. I've simply demonstrated, through the words of experts, that the fires caused by the jets and some office furniture couldn't have done it.

 

On molten metal and other things

Ok, after doing a little research, I have once again affirmed that there is lots of statements that there was molten steel:
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-was-there-molten-metal-under.html

And as to shaman's comment about bent steel. Why should it matter why some steel was bent? The real issue should be why the towers collapsed. And ofcourse bent steel doesn't make a tower collapse, let alone get it to collapse in its own footprint at about freefall speed. But it seems the argument is that bent steel = towers collapsing at free fall speed

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

It seems this whole bent steel thing is really just distracting us from the point. I recently read a post of mine, hammering home the most important points; that is, the arguments used by NIST to justify that the tower collapsed due to fire and its counter. I believe that Steven Jones says it well. I've said it before but I don't want to look through the mighty tangle, so I'll just quote Steven Jones article once more:

He then offers a far more plausible cause of the WTC collapses:

http://physics911.net/stevenjones

 

The bowing of the tower shows that the steel was being subjected to immense temperatures. It really is as simple as that.

You seem to forget that I am also using the words of experts. NIST, MIT and ASCE consists of 125,000 civil engineers as well as experts in other fields. I can not for the life of me wonder why you think they would all got out of their way to lie.

Even if I use sources unrelated to NIST, there is still agreement on temperatures required to weaken steel:

All materials weaken with increasing temperature and steel is no exception. Strength loss for steel is generally accepted to begin at about 300ºC and increases rapidly after 400ºC, by 550ºC steel retains about 60% of its room temperature yield strength. This is usually considered to be the failure temperature for structural steel. However, in practice this is a very conservative assumption; low loads, the insulating effects of concrete slabs, the restraining effects of connections etc. mean that real failure temperatures can be as high as 750ºC or even higher for partially exposed members.
http://www.azobuild.com/details.asp?ArticleID=3621

Lets also bear in mind that the aircraft damaged much of the structural support and shifted a lot of weight on to what supports remained and with the fire proofing blown off and fires which reached temperatures of 1832 degrees, any weakening of the remaining supports would have been critical.

The effects of fire damage were also seen in WTC5 which suffered internal collapse due to "normal office fires". Much of the steel was weakened to the point were it failed completely.

Again, it would be easy for truthers to debunk any of this with an experiment using a supporting beam similar to that of the WTC and subjected to the same amount of heat. All they have to do is show how much strength was lost in the steel.

 

With the tiny unfortunate complication that the towers didn't fall from the bottom.

Why do you cite these idiots, Scott?

 

Because it now appears that the loss of structural strength aptly explains the collapse of the Towers?

 

One thing that becomes obvious is that many of those quotes say metal and not steel. It’s interesting that people refer to things that are “molten” when they are clearly still solid. The fact that it may be red hot is enough to fool the layman into saying it’s “molten”. The layman will also be fooled into saying that molten material is molten steel. How did they know it is steel?

Secondly, what makes you think that bombs or thermate would be responsible? Bombs are instantaneous, and I’m sure you’ll agree that there wasn’t enough thermate used to continue a several month long reaction.

Still claiming that the WTC fell in free fall speed? 15 seconds for tower 2 and over 20 seconds for tower 1 are not free fall. Please stop repeating this lie.

As for bent steel, I shouldn’t have to tell you that bent steel is not a good thing for a building. I’m sure any civil engineer will testify to the fact that if you have weakened steel in a steel framed building, it’s integrity would be put in serious doubt.

”

The NIST computer models were based upon the fires, temperature and visible bowing of the tower. They tweaked the computer models to see if the heat and temperatures could account for the bowing effect that was seen and its eventual failure. And what d’yknow? They were right. Read their report and stop going on second hand information that has been skewed by a disgraced professor.

You really are making this too easy for me.

Let me start with his claim about columns being cut. In the above quote he claims explosives cut them, but this is a contradiction on his thermate claims. Was it explosives, or was it thermate? If it was explosives then once again we are faced with the conundrum of silent explosions. Find me an explosive that can cut these beams and not be heard for miles.

As for the squibs; well this is really easy to debunk. The ‘squibs’ seen in videos of the collapse are very slow, which would be consistent with the compressed air being forced out. If it was an explosive, it would be instantaneous and accompanied by a humungous sound blast as well as a bright flash. None of this happened with the ‘squibs’ seen at the WTC. And again, he contradicts his thermate theory by citing squibs as being proof of explosives.

Then he talks about thermite being used to cut beams seen at ground zero. Well this is perhaps the easiest to be debunked of all his claims. I recommend you watch this video which shows multiple beams being cut in the recovery effort:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-MEKpLmWtA

It’s also worth mentioning that if the first image in that video was molten steel, then how are fire fighters able to keep their face directly over the hole? I shouldn’t need to tell you that temperatures required to keep steel molten are immense, therefore the last thing you are going to do is hover your face above it.